Re: FSP Resolution Thought: No secrets?

<<<<I ve thought a lot about the government under surveillance idea, and I think its actually a good one. Everything government does should be

Message 1 of 2221
, Jan 7, 2002

0 Attachment

<<<<I've thought a lot about the
"government under surveillance" idea, and I think its
actually a good one. Everything government does should be
watched -- closely. When you take the oath of office,
your private life is private, but anything you do
under the title of "government business" should be
watched over closely by any citizen who
cares.>>>><br><br>I like it! At least for elected Officials. And
elected Officials are responsible for those under them.
You can bet, if elected Officials were held
accountable for crimes committted by their appointed
delegates, there would be much better oversight going on.

Gold Standard Press

If we start out at the Town or County level, it will be pretty easy to soon find out whether our favorite candidates turn out to be True to their Word. c. ...

Message 2221 of 2221
, Jan 13, 2003

0 Attachment

If we start out at the Town or County level, it will be pretty easy to soon find out whether our favorite candidates turn out to be True to their Word.

Sure, most of the below argument is true. The problem that I have, is that
the other partys' platforms are 100% vague and noncommittal. We'd have to
run people from the Free State's Libertarian Party to make sure they were
telling the truth. We could never trust anyone from the Republican Party,
unless we knew his past, in detail. Ron Paul is one of a very select few
exceptions. He was our LP Pres candidate, after all. We knew he was cool.
We had EVIDENCE of his coolness.

With any influx of free-staters, we'd have to be very wary of politicians
that are simply lying when they promise to vote our way.

We'd also have to be wary of candidates that lack intelligence or guts,
because both will be necessary for the job. What I mean when I say this,
is: WE CAN'T AFFORD TO REPEAT LEADVILLE.

I almost feel the need to apologize for stating something this obvious, but
one never can be too sure...

The article on our website about the Bi-Partisan League is a case in
point. You don't have to join the party to run on the party ticket.
The "Porcupine endorsement" would be the key to who gets the vote,
regardless of party. Each voting district selects the party that would
most likely win an election in that district, and the "Porcupine" runs
on that ticket.

Jeff R.

motie_d wrote:

> --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald G Wittig"
> <groverw@c...> wrote:
> > Motie,
> > C.L. Butch Otter Rep 1st Dist Idaho. Talked with him Wed. He and
> Ron are
> > busy comparing notes. Butch and Ron along with an Independent
> Congressman
> > were the only ones to vote against the Patriot Act. When I ran
> against him
> > in 2000, many media types asked me why a Libertarian would run
> against Butch
> > as he is considered libertarian by them. Butch hasn't bought the
> whole ball
> > of wax yet. He has serious reservations about our stand on sex,
> drugs, and
> > gambling to varing degrees.
>
> Are they personal reservations, or a concern as to his electabilty if
> he were to make it a public position?
>
> > Hates the alphbet soup. Has been fined several
> > times by EPA for making changes on his property. Butch is not your
> tipical
> > Republican, then again neither is Ron.
> > By the way, I worked on behalf of Ron in 1988 when he ran as the
> Libertarian
> > Presidential candidate.
> > Ron
>
> That follows along witht he point I was trying to make. We don't
> necessarily have to start a new Party from scratch, if we can get the
> existing Parties and their infrastructure to come our way.
> I am against Partisan Politics. I support the ideas based on their
> Merits, not by which Party to proponent is from. If a Democrat were
> to propose a Bill to repeal all UnConstitutional Laws ever enacted, I
> would support him all the way.
>
> Motie
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT